Curious. I'm debating with someone regarding a play in the Super Bowl. This play actually.

I thought it could have been considered a late hate on Flacco which would have given the Ravens a first down. The person I'm debating with told me that there is no way it's a late hit because you have to have both feet out of bounds for it to be considered "late". I don't remember an exact ruling on that and couldn't find it in the rulings book. I thought once your foot is out of bounds you are out of bounds. Same reason why a catch is considered out of bounds once you have one foot in the boundary.

Pretty sure once the foot is down you're out of bounds, making this play not a late hit.

Well it looks like Sopoaga uses actual force to shove Flacco once his foot is out of bounds hitting the white paint. While his foot was still in the air Sopoaga was on him, but had yet to extend his arms.

personally i don't care what verbiage they haphazardly use to define whether or not it is a "late hit", intent should factor in when considering an event driven by a players momentum in a sport where the objective is to tackle the player holding the football; it may seem stupid to want to rule on a subjective scale, but then again football is a game not a math problem. consistent or not, i'd rather just see the refs use their best judgment and watch people get outraged when they **** up.

A defender is allowed a step after the ball is thrown to hit the QB. When he started to lunge at Flacco, Flacco wasn't out of bounds. The defender had too much momentum not to make contact even if he tried.

The defender didn't have to extend his arms when he made contact and shove Flacco to the ground. For that reason it is a foul.

The important part here is not when the actual contact is made but when the "hit" starts. He's preparing to hit Flacco before Flacco has even thrown the ball. Once that happens, there is no stopping the hit and since Flacco is still in the act of trying to throw the ball, the player has to be allowed to hit him.